Patriot Group Fights Back Against Confiscation Order: ‘We Are Armed… Familiar With Marksmanship

DJW001
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.

Although I admit that books are far more dangerous than guns, which is why tyrants burn books but let their supporters keep their guns, a child cannot accidentally kill another child with an improperly stored book.

A pretty rare but unfortunate accident. Children also drown in 5 gallon buckets and I know a child who died when he climbed up on an bookshelf and the books and shelf collapsed on him. Unfortunate accidents happen but that is really not an excuse to limit civil liberties. Do you honestly think you can legislate away accidents?

reply to post by oblvion

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

reply to post by DJW001

So what you seem to be saying is that if a law-maker makes a law that you, personally, believe violates the Constitution, you can arrogate yourself the right to imprison them

Just until he is able to prove his innocence.
While incarcerated and having all available funds
and assets frozen as with all criminal investigations.
But he is innocent until proven guilty of course.


Spell check

DJW001

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

Where is the infringement

Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

The Constitution does not state that gun ownership is only part of militia service and the SCOTUS confirmed that.

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.

Although I admit that books are far more dangerous than guns, which is why tyrants burn books but let their supporters keep their guns, a child cannot accidentally kill another child with an improperly stored book.

A pretty rare but unfortunate accident. Children also drown in 5 gallon buckets and I know a child who died when he climbed up on an bookshelf and the books and shelf collapsed on him. Unfortunate accidents happen but that is really not an excuse to limit civil liberties. Do you honestly think you can legislate away accidents?

No, but you can mitigate the potential damage. That's why the government FORCES us to use seat belts. Surely that must violate some unwritten constitutional right.

randyvs
reply to post by DJW001

 

So what you seem to be saying is that if a law-maker makes a law that you, personally, believe violates the Constitution, you can arrogate yourself the right to imprison them

Just until he is able to prove his innocense.
While incarcerated and having all available funds
and assets frozen as with all criminal investigations.
But he is innocent until proven guilty of course.

I'm pretty sure you have already passed judgement on a lot of people you consider to be criminals, whether they have broke any laws or not.

DJW001

bigfatfurrytexan

beezzer

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?

Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.

What am I proposing, exactly?

I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?

I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?

Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.

This is what I've been saying.

We are quickly losing our "rights" through innoculous laws that appear (on the surface) as innocent and deemed necessary for our "safety".

Laws have become something that is passed on the back of pathos. Fear is not a rationale mindset to base decisions that should require logic instead.

Such as the fear that "they" are going to take away your guns.

That is not a fear. It is a reality.

It all started with only certain guns. Now, I have people on here arguing that I don't need a rifle to protect my family from cougars, bobcats, coyotes, rattlesnakes, and wild hogs. Despite seeing a cougar/mountain lion 2 days ago slinking along the top of a ridge behind my house. THAT is what my fear is: the life and safety of my family. From a real threat, proven to be a threat.

Yet, I am not seeking to pass any laws. So pathos is perfectly fine. Logos is what is required for the creation of just laws. And that seems to be what is short both in your argument, and in the state and national assembly houses.

reply to post by DJW001

whether they have broke any laws or not.

Damn it! Ok you got me there.

DJW001

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

Where is the infringement

Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

You are using the wrong definition of the word "regulated".

In the context of the US Constitution, "regulated" means that people take the time to practice with their firearms. They know how to use them. They aren't just a bunch of city slickers that had a rifle thrust into their hands to wield dangerously.

Regulated has nothing to do with taking inventories and knowing what you have possession of. The very notion of that is dumbfoundingly stupid. It is so far out of the character of the Consitution as to make me wonder why anyone would even think that.

randyvs
reply to post by DJW001

 

whether they have broke any laws or not.

Damn it! Ok you got me there.

edit on 3-3-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

No he doesn't. Your opinion has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty". You are not involved in a legal capacity, and are not on a jury.

Besides, "innocent until proven guilty" only works when the system proving guilt is just. Todd Willingham was proven guilty, and was executed. When, in fact, he was innocent. I am sure there are others executed unjustly...but we can list out plenty of folks who were locked away for decades over wrongful convictions.

For some reason that cliche of "Well, its not a perfect system, but its the best in the world" just doesn't cut it for me anymore. We are talking about peoples lives. And, unlike a video game....you only get 1 of those lives.

Until we have a just system, or at least do more than give lip service, my own personal opinion is the best I have got.

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Because when a right requires licensing and/or approval by the state, it ceases to be a right. Change "weapon" to "book" in your post above and see if you would hold the same opinion.

Although I admit that books are far more dangerous than guns, which is why tyrants burn books but let their supporters keep their guns, a child cannot accidentally kill another child with an improperly stored book.

A pretty rare but unfortunate accident. Children also drown in 5 gallon buckets and I know a child who died when he climbed up on an bookshelf and the books and shelf collapsed on him. Unfortunate accidents happen but that is really not an excuse to limit civil liberties. Do you honestly think you can legislate away accidents?

No, but you can mitigate the potential damage. That's why the government FORCES us to use seat belts. Surely that must violate some unwritten constitutional right.

I'd say that a federal law mandating seatbelt use violates the 10th amendment, but a state law that does would be Constitutionally consistent. The nanny state does like to force us to do things "for our own good" and this philosophy is the crux of many problems. Let me quote C.S. Lewis here as the "do it for the children" excuse runs rampant in this debate.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

bigfatfurrytexan

DJW001

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

Where is the infringement

Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

You are using the wrong definition of the word "regulated".

In the context of the US Constitution, "regulated" means that people take the time to practice with their firearms. They know how to use them. They aren't just a bunch of city slickers that had a rifle thrust into their hands to wield dangerously.

Regulated has nothing to do with taking inventories and knowing what you have possession of. The very notion of that is dumbfoundingly stupid. It is so far out of the character of the Consitution as to make me wonder why anyone would even think that.

Well regulated might mean having more fibre in your diet. . . .

This will be spun into a word-salad so that the true impact is negated.

Once we agree to a controlling central authority mandating what kind of firearms we are allowed to have, we've lost the fight.

I would almost argue now that we do not have the "Right to bear arms" any longer.

We've ceded authority for our "safety".

reply to post by beezzer


Not I, senor.

The inclusion of a declaration that "arms shall not be infringed" is obviously the whole reason for the second amendment.

There is no good reason to assert that something is restricted in the section of the constitution guarantying empowerment.

If the second amendment was about the militia it would have been included in the section dealing with the commander-in-chief.

Semicollegiate
If the second amendment was about the militia it would have been included in the section dealing with the commander-in-chief.

I'm still trying to figure out why Congress would need to protect its right to raise a militia when it already had the right to raise and support armies granted in Article 1 Section 8.

Oh well, such are the great mysteries of life and liberal thought processes, I suppose.

NavyDoc

DJW001

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

Where is the infringement

Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

The Constitution does not state that gun ownership is only part of militia service and the SCOTUS confirmed that.

"well regulated" in 18th century speak means "well trained". It is the constitutional responsibility of the federal govt to provide training and range time for all its citizens, as all able-bodied citizens are of the militia.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Thank you very much and that brings us
full circle to my original point. Any lawmaker
using his position to usurp the constitution,
is guilty of treason. No pencils, no words, no
jails, no warnings, just bullets. That way they
stay completely away from any thoughts of it
just being, " A piece of paper ".

And to hell with anyone who doesn't cherish freedom
enough to feel the same way.

tkwasny

NavyDoc

DJW001

Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

Where is the infringement

Register or lose your arms. How is that not infringement?

Because the Constitution says that a militia needs to be well regulated. How can the militia be organized properly if nobody knows who has what weapon?

The Constitution does not state that gun ownership is only part of militia service and the SCOTUS confirmed that.

"well regulated" in 18th century speak means "well trained". It is the constitutional responsibility of the federal govt to provide training and range time for all its citizens, as all able-bodied citizens are of the militia.

Um, no. Its not. You are so wrong in that statement that to anyone else reading this discussion, nothing further needs to be pointed out.

BUt you are incorrect. Please go and read the case law regarding various SCOTUS 2A rulings.

The only job the federal government has is what is expressly stated in the constitution. Everything else is tyrannical power grabs achieved by making a populace dumb enough to allow it.

DJW001
reply to post by oblvion

 

For the last time, THEY ARE TRyING TO TAKE OUR GUNS.

If I can't trust you to keep your word that you will never say THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS, how can I trust you to keep your word that you will never use the gun against an innocent person?

Why cant you trust me?

How does shooting someone to death a a small lie on a chat forum even equate in your version of logic?

Why wont you tell me how many names of those in power it would take to make you stop saying they arent trying to take guns from people?

Because you know they are, and you are trying to play word games to avoid the truth, nice try though.

randyvs
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Thank you very much and that brings us
full circle to my original point. Any lawmaker
using his position to usurp the constitution,
is guilty of treason. No pencils, no words, no
jails, no warnings, just bullets. That way they
stay completely away from any thoughts of it
just being, " A piece of paper ".

And to hell with anyone who doesn't cherish freedom
enough to feel the same way.

While not in favor of the guillotine, I have no objection to a rope being used in cases of treason.